[Bug 658450] Review Request: ATpy - Astronomical Tables in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658450 --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-05-10 11:13:15 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658450] Review Request: ATpy - Astronomical Tables in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658450 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-05-10 19:24:13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658450] Review Request: ATpy - Astronomical Tables in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658450 Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de 2011-05-07 13:35:32 EDT --- This is the official review: - [+] = ok [o] = does not apply [-] = needs work - [+] rpmlint is quiet enough (false positive): rpmlint SPECS/ATpy.spec SRPMS/ATpy-0.9.5-1.fc14.src.rpm RPMS/noarch/ATpy-0.9.5-1.fc14.noarch.rpm ATpy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recarrays - rec arrays, rec-arrays, recalibrate ATpy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recarrays - rec arrays, rec-arrays, recalibrate 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [+] The package is named according to the guidelines [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] The package follows the Packaging Guidelines [+] The license is an approved licence (MIT) [+] The License field matches the actual licence [+] License file from source file is included in %doc [+] The spec file is written in American English [+] The spec file is legible [+] Packaged sources match with upstream sources (md5) md5sum ATpy-0.9.5.tar.gz.packaged ATpy-0.9.5.tar.gz.upstream 9e030de0f6ed9f59aed3f03010af4012 ATpy-0.9.5.tar.gz.packaged 9e030de0f6ed9f59aed3f03010af4012 ATpy-0.9.5.tar.gz.upstream [+] Package build at least on one primary architecture [+] ExecludeArch is not known to be needed. [+] All build dependencies are listed in the BuildRequires section [o] No locales for the package [o] Package does not store shared libraries [+] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [o] Package is not relocatable [+] Package owns all directories it installs. [+] No files are listed more than once in the %files section [+] File permissions are set properly (%defattr(...) is used) [+] Consistent use of macros [+] Package contains code and documentation only, no content [+] No large documentation files [+] %doc files do not affect runtime [o] No header files included [o] No static libraries included [o] library files ending with .so included in devel subpackage [o] no -devel subpackage [+] No libtool .la archives included [o] No GUI application, no need for a .desktop file [+] Package does not own files or directories that are owned by other packages [+] All filenames are valid UTF-8 python specific items: [+] Python eggs are be built from source. [+] Python eggs do not download any dependencies during the build process. [o] Not building a compat package. [o] Not building multiple versions (except python3 version). SHOULD items: [o] Source package does already include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream [o] No other Non-English languages supported [+] The package builds in mock [o] No koji scratch build because of conditional build macros [o] No runable program packaged to test [+] No exotic scriptlets used [o] Pyhton3 subpackage does not need to require the base package [o] no pkgconfig(.pc) files included [o] No file dependencies [o] No binaries/scripts - no man pages needed - No further comments, everything seems to be fine. - PACKAGE APPROVED - -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658450] Review Request: ATpy - Astronomical Tables in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658450 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com 2011-05-07 19:11:46 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ATpy Short Description: Astronomical Tables in Python Owners: sergiopr Branches: f13 f14 f15 el6 el5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658450] Review Request: ATpy - Astronomical Tables in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658450 --- Comment #6 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com 2011-05-02 10:35:25 EDT --- New upstream release, under MIT license Spec URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ATpy.spec SRPM URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ATpy-0.9.5-1.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658450] Review Request: ATpy - Astronomical Tables in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658450 Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|packa...@golotop.de -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658450] Review Request: ATpy - Astronomical Tables in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658450 Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658450] Review Request: ATpy - Astronomical Tables in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658450 --- Comment #4 from Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de 2011-04-27 16:06:21 EDT --- I see. And you chose GPL+ because of [1], right?: A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include. This should be right. However, the comment in the spec file might be a bit misleading then. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658450] Review Request: ATpy - Astronomical Tables in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658450 --- Comment #5 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com 2011-04-27 16:58:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) I see. And you chose GPL+ because of [1], right?: Yes This should be right. However, the comment in the spec file might be a bit misleading then. I agree with that. I can change the comment to Next release will be under MIT license -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658450] Review Request: ATpy - Astronomical Tables in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658450 --- Comment #2 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com 2011-04-26 08:06:13 EDT --- Hi, the license in the SPEC comes from the tarball. I know the license in git is MIT, but the tarball is not a git checkout. As soon as upstream make a new release, I will update the licensing information. Now the %files section is more verbose. Spec URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ATpy.spec SRPM URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ATpy-0.9.4-2.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658450] Review Request: ATpy - Astronomical Tables in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658450 --- Comment #3 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com 2011-04-26 15:48:01 EDT --- With python3 support Spec URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ATpy.spec SRPM URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/ATpy-0.9.4-3.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658450] Review Request: ATpy - Astronomical Tables in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658450 Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||packa...@golotop.de --- Comment #1 from Golo Fuchert packa...@golotop.de 2011-04-25 16:06:41 EDT --- Hi, it seems that the license information in the SPEC file is not correct any more. Beside of that, I would strongly suggest you to be a little bit more precise in the %files section. Who knows what they will ship in that tarball tomorrow? Beside of that the package seems to be ready for a review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
